What is your Understanding of the Unforgivable Sin (Matt 12:30)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter smolderingwick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jack_hawkins said:
no, that doesn’t follow at all?:confused:
salvation by works is salvation by works
all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God
Click to expand...
i don’t know many (any?) atheists, but i would think that they don’t think about “salvation” one way or the other. That is a term Christians and Jews use, not those who don’t believe… or so it seems to me. I frankly have a hard time believing anyone is a true, dyed-in the wool atheist…

Let him or her get into a “fox-hole” and then we will see… 🤷
 
jack_hawkins said:
hmmm the problem with saying atheists etc get redemption through living a moral life is that is salvation by works
Click to expand...
Works alone is not sufficient because it is doubtfull they could live a sinless life. Grace would still be required for them as for all of us.
 
Verisimilitude said:
Works alone is not sufficient because it is doubtfull they could live a sinless life. Grace would still be required for them as for all of us.
Click to expand...
so why did the Apostles preach the gospel if accepting Christ as saviour is not required?
in fact, in that case ignorance is preferable - as then “trying” to live a moral life would be easier???
 
smolderingwick said:
i don’t know many (any?) atheists, but i would think that they don’t think about “salvation” one way or the other. That is a term Christians and Jews use, not those who don’t believe… or so it seems to me. I frankly have a hard time believing anyone is a true, dyed-in the wool atheist…

Let him or her get into a “fox-hole” and then we will see… 🤷
Click to expand...
see my post to verisimilitude
in that case, ignorance is indeed bliss as then one is not bothered by knowing a load of rules and can just “try” to lead a moral life???
 
jack_hawkins said:
so why did the Apostles preach the gospel if accepting Christ as saviour is not required?
in fact, in that case ignorance is preferable - as then “trying” to live a moral life would be easier???
Click to expand...
Some people in distant countries have not heard of Christ and yet God wants them saved also and does save them. God speaks to all his children. He loves them all equally. God spoke to me when i was outside the Church, its just that i didn’t realize it or realize it fully - then. He spoke to me through my conscience… through nature… etc…

Maybe he spoke to me more than (or in a better way than??) to those who are not baptized… i don’t know… I do believe being raised Catholic (albeit uncatechized :rolleyes: ) helped me more than i ever (b4 now) realized…
The Church does lead people to God, to a better understanding of Him and to deeper intimacy with Him… through Jesus Christ, the only One who has seen Him…
I feel the biggest error the Church makes, generally, is not evangelizing as much as it should…
…but then, maybe that’s the layman’s job… (mostly).🤷
 
smolderingwick said:
Some people in distant countries have not heard of Christ and yet God wants them saved also and does save them. God speaks to all his children. He loves them all equally. God spoke to me when i was outside the Church, its just that i didn’t realize it or realize it fully - then. He spoke to me through my conscience… through nature… etc…

Maybe he spoke to me more than (or in a better way than??) to those who are not baptized… i don’t know… I do believe being raised Catholic (albeit uncatechized :rolleyes: ) helped me more than i ever (b4 now) realized…
The Church does lead people to God, to a better understanding of Him and to deeper intimacy with Him… through Jesus Christ, the only One who has seen Him…
I feel the biggest error the Church makes, generally, is not evangelizing as much as it should…
…but then, maybe that’s the layman’s job… (mostly).🤷
Click to expand...
I have to agree that we all could do a better job of evangalizing.
What you say here is what the Catholic church teaches.
 
Oh I agree that not hearing about Christ does not mean one is doomed - everyone is judged by the light they had
 
My understanding of that verse is that, all those who root against the NY Yankees will go to hell automatically (or become Red Sox fans, which is the same thing!!) … 😃 😃 😃 😃
smolderingwick said:
In 2 or 3 sentences, can you explain your understanding of the unforgivable sin? Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
jack_hawkins said:
so why did the Apostles preach the gospel if accepting Christ as saviour is not required?
Click to expand...
That is the conundrum many of these threads are about. God is not bound by the sacriments for then He would not be the All Mighty if He were bound by them. The question of Limbo for the unbaptised. Will He forgive the person who dies unable to repent? We do not know if He will do that, but we do know how to avoid that possibility.
in fact, in that case ignorance is preferable - as then “trying” to live a moral life would be easier???
Click to expand...
“For those that are given much, much is expected”. True, to remain in ignorance might be better and easier, but as much as I tried or wanted to have it easier, I did not want to be ignorant. I had to question and having done so I cannot deny the facts.

That is the unforgivable sin of the OP. The Good News is spiritual wealth we have been given. We have been given much, so much is expected of us: ie keep the sacriments and the Law. We do not do so at our peril, and to purposely spend that wealth inappropriately for our desires rather than God’s is a great sin.
 
atheists who have heard the gospel and rejected it - what about them?
it sounds from what you’re saying that it would be better to leave people in ignorance, otherwise we’re burdening them?
 
jack_hawkins said:
atheists who have heard the gospel and rejected it - what about them?
Click to expand...
I think atheists who have heard but rejected are in the same boat as anyone who has heard and rejected. Some might be worse off than others.
it sounds from what you’re saying that it would be better to leave people in ignorance, otherwise we’re burdening them?
Click to expand...
Is Truth a burden? What is more compassionate; telling someone how to live a better life in preparation for the next life, or not tell them so that this life is less good (for themselves and those around them) but they now have an excuse to enter the next life in ignorance?

We have an inherant desire to know God. That desire manifests itself in seeking Him out and knowing what He said and wants. Try as we might it is hard to remain ignorant.
 
The unforgivable sin is little more than rejecting Christ and refusing his forgiveness. Over and over The Bible tells us all sins can be forgiven, Jesus himself says he’ll never turn away any that come to him. If he were to refuse us forgiveness for anything we sincerely repented of, it’d make him a liar. See how ridiculous that sounds? It’s the hardness of heart and refusal of Jesus that makes a sin unforgivable, it’s not due to any lack of God’s mercy, which is, of course, infinite. As long as you’re still alive, and you seek forgiveness (for anything, regardless of how awful it is), I’d say you’re in good shape. Jesus died for ALL sins on the cross.

Sorry that’s a bit longer than 2-3 sentences.
 
Verisimilitude said:
I think atheists who have heard but rejected are in the same boat as anyone who has heard and rejected. Some might be worse off than others
Click to expand...
so if they try to live a moral life, will they go to heaven?
Is Truth a burden? What is more compassionate; telling someone how to live a better life in preparation for the next life, or not tell them so that this life is less good (for themselves and those around them) but they now have an excuse to enter the next life in ignorance?
Click to expand...
We have an inherant desire to know God. That desire manifests itself in seeking Him out and knowing what He said and wants. Try as we might it is hard to remain ignorant.
Click to expand...
well as you’ve presented (and admitted pretty well) the truth would be a burden! so the latter option would definitely be more compassionate
that’s why it doesn’t make sense
according to the model you present we shouldn’t be evangelising, since it is enough to live a “good” life (or at least try) - receiving Christ is not necessary
it’s not a matter of trying to remain ignorant if you’re in the Amazon rain forest is it? until some smiling Western evangelist comes and gives you all these extra burdens?
 
…so when the apostles and disciples were sent out on the Great Commission they should have just been telling people to “try to live a good life”?
when they encountered resistance, they should have said to themselves “oh well, as long as these people try to live a good life they’ll be OK”?
the martyrs gave their lives for nothing? why die for the sake of Christ when all that is needed to get to heaven is to try to live a good life?
so are you really a Deist?
 
jack_hawkins said:
…so when the apostles and disciples were sent out on the Great Commission they should have just been telling people to “try to live a good life”?
when they encountered resistance, they should have said to themselves “oh well, as long as these people try to live a good life they’ll be OK”?
Click to expand...
One does not light a lamp and put it under a tub to hide it. We can’t forget that other than the Jews, humanity was living without the direct knowledge of God for generations. To withhold from humanity the Good News would be hiding the lamp.

What they said was “Rejoice, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.”

Why would Jesus say this: Matthew 21:31
“Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you.

Does He clarify that the tax collectors and prostitutes accept Him first? Who was He speaking to? And even if He was suggesting only repentent sinners attain Heaven, he was talking to those (Jews) who rejected and killed Him. By saying they get in before them, doesn’t that still suggest they too will get in as well at some point? Do you think because they were Jews- the Choosen People-that they will receive a different judgement from the rest of humanity? They died in their sin just as the person in the Amazon rain forrest does.

What does this mean to you (in context)?
Luke 12:59
“I say to you, you will not get out of there until you have paid the very last cent.”

Is He speaking specifically to what we think of as Christians, or is it general enough to suggest He was refering to everyone?
the martyrs gave their lives for nothing? why die for the sake of Christ when all that is needed to get to heaven is to try to live a good life?
so are you really a Deist?
Click to expand...
Dare we hope everyone is saved in the end? Would you be jealous if He paid everyone the same wage that didn’t deserve it? Do you live a Saintly and pure sinless life? But by the grace of God you were born in a culture or family that has the freedoms or benefit of hearing the Word. You had the good sense to embrace and believe it.

I am not so bold as to say I know for sure that everyone one not born with that freedom or benefit is doomed to eternal damnation. There is enough ambiguity to wonder but not decide. What I do know with certainty is that I know the Truth, and ultimately I am not judged on the community though I am part of it, I am judged individually with the totality of my being in review. That same level of scrutiny is for every other individual on the planet from the first to the last.

How often it is said; that the last shall be first, and the first shall be last. Being last in the first sense is a good thing. Being last in the second sense still holds that they will join the first.

The OP suggests all sins be forgiven except the unforgivable blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The person in the Amazon did not blasphem the Holy Spirit in ignorance, so his other sins can…it says will be actually. . forgiven.

People like Jim Jones, David Koresh, the Mormons Joseph Smith…who lead astray for less than divine reasons to me are subject to the OP. Some people like ham- the Muslim- risk such a thing, but only their heart can determine if it is from malice or ignorance. And only God can determine that.
 
From the Haydock Commentary: “Ver. 31. The blasphemy[2] against the Spirit, or against the Spirit and the Holy Ghost. St. Augustine takes notice, that this is one of the most difficult places in the Scriptures. According to the common exposition, here is not meant a sin committed by speaking against the third person of the blessed Trinity, the Holy Ghost, but that sin by which the obstinate Jews wilfully opposed Christ, and attributed those miracles to Beelzebub, which he performed by the Spirit of God, of which they could not be ignorant, but by a wilful blindness. (Witham) — The sin here spoken of is that blasphemy, by which the Pharisees attributed the miracles of Christ, wrought by the Spirit of God, to Beelzebub, the prince of devils. Now this kind of sin is usually accompanied with so much obstinacy, and such wilful opposing the Spirit of God, and the known truth, that men who are guilty of it are seldom or ever converted; and therefore are never forgiven, because they will not repent. Otherwise there is no sin which God cannot, or will not forgive to such as sincerely request, and have recourse to the keys of the Church. (Challoner) — Therefore I say: this therefore is not referred to what immediately precedes, but to what is said in verse 24. (Maldonatus) — Whosoever he be, says St. Augustine, that believeth not man’s sins to be remitted in the Church of God, and therefore despiseth the bounteous mercies of God, in so mighty a work, if he continue in his obstinate mind till death, he is guilty of sin against the Holy Ghost. (Euchir. lxxxiii. ep. 50. in fine.)”
haydock1859.tripod.com/id27.html
 
lak611 said:
Now this kind of sin is usually accompanied with so much obstinacy, and such wilful opposing the Spirit of God, and the known truth, that men who are guilty of it are seldom or ever converted; and therefore are never forgiven, because they will not repent. Otherwise there is no sin which God cannot, or will not forgive
Click to expand...
This is pretty much what it says in the footnote of the Douay Rheims Bible. thank God for the Catholic Church… There seems to be so much speculation about this sin out in the Protestant world… and believing you are guilty of it is one of the most dangerous things to believe… because you will give up on receiving total forgiveness/absolution… even salvation, and in so doing, lead others to fall away - or further away - from Christ and HIs Church… Whenever i get the thought that some good came from Protestantism, i am shown something that causes me to think otherwise…
The further away from the Church one is, the worse off he is… it’s a simple as that… 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top